Our Stand Re SANARCOM's Unified Contract - Patnubay | Forums

Author

Topic

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2008 : 9:20:47 PM

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:40:16 +0300
From: "Ronnie Abeto"
To: Undisclosed Recipient

Reaction:

While we have the same advocacies and sympathy as Migrante, their strong statement on the issue reflects their unawareness of what the UC contains

"Its rationale goes against the basic tenets of labor and human rights laws!" – this statement by Migrante is unfair and without basis, as looking at the content of the UC, it basically promotes human rights and in accordance with the provision of the existing local Saudi laws – although there are some points need to be clarified and strengthened and to be aligned with our Philippine laws.

"Agreeing fully with the terms of the KSA shows how impervious this government is to the runaways and the stranded, the maltreated, the victims of sexual harassment or rape, and the stranded," Regalado-Bragas added.

See below how it protects the workers:

Guarantees:

A. The deployed worker shall be in good physical conditions free from any physical disabilities, chronic or contagious or psychological or mental disorders and if the worker is female, she shall not be pregnant.

This is in relation to what our government would want to impose – to avoid similar situation happened in the past.

B. The trade of recruited manpower shall be according to the required profession as stated in the conditions supported by certificates and licenses.

This will protect the worker from working other jobs – and will be a just basis in the labor court.

C. Not to reject the work or run away with no justifiable reason.

Basically, running away is a violation against the local laws of Saudi Arabia – therefore it is not new. Only to clarify and put more protection clause in favor of the workers.

D. The recruited manpower shall not be ever Convicted or not allowed to be recruited prior to elapse of certain period of time due to implementation of certain rules or regulations.

SOP.

2. The First Party undertakes not to receive any amounts from applicants under any settlement except what is allowed by the laws of ( ).

This will protect the workers from excessive placement fees charged by the unscrupulous recruitment agencies.

3. Both parties agree not to resort to the services of any mediators or any unlicensed parties.

There are some individuals who go to Philippine provinces to recruit workers. These individuals act as middleman between the worker and the recruitment agency. They are not employed in the recruitment agency. In Saudi Arabia this practice might have occured.

In this provision, if the services of mediator (middlemen) are prohibited then this will be beneficial to the worker in terms of placement fee costs.

This will also protect the worker from abuses like contract substitution and illegal transfer of sponsorship.

4. First party undertakes that the manpower shall arrive to the kingdom within a maximum period of ( ) days from the date of receiving authorization and specifications.

This will speed up the mobilization of the workers and cannot be held up intentionally by the recruitment agencies in exchange of “something”.

5. Second Party undertakes to provide the First Party with all available information about the CLIENT including the address in order to be able to arrive to work site

This is very important – as SOS cases we handled doesn’t know where they are and doesn’t know any contact numbers or exact names of their employer.

7.A - Arrival transportation, salary and benefits according to the offer of the client.

This will prevent “contract substitution” as the real salary offered by the Client is the one to be disclosed to the workers.

B - Second Party has the right to decide the type and means of transportation, method of providing the ticket whether in cash or otherwise according to his decision.

8. The circumstances and work conditions shall be according to the general rules and regulations applicable in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia .

This warrant the protection of our workers in case – abuses and maltreatment comes.

9. The work contract in force is the one presented by the second party (approved in the kingdom) in his capacity as the employer's representative.

Again – this is transparency and will avoid “contract substitution”

10.A- Any worker requested by name from Second Party, First Party shall not be responsible towards the correctness of trade rejection of work, but shall bear the responsibility of what stipulated in clause (A) of item No.(1).

B- The Second party or his representative has the right to interview any of the Manpower proposed by the First Party and still the First Party shall bear the responsibilities of guarantee as mentioned in item no (1) and this is not connected to item No.(10A).

I suggests to Migrante to go over the UC before making such comments and they will find out that it will help advocacy groups in our advocacies and assisting distressed workers.

This comment is only for the purposes of clarification on Migrante’s claims as “against the basic tenets of labor and human rights laws”.

Regards,

Ka Ronnie

Group: Deferment of KSA's unified contract not enough
09/04/2008 | 03:06 PM

MANILA, Philippines - An alliance of migrant workers said on Wednesday that it was not enough to postpone the implementation of the unified contract scheme in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and instead called for the scrapping of the "unfair" policy.

"The unified contract must be condemned to oblivion!" said Connie Regalado-Bragas, chairperson of Migrante International in a statement. "Its rationale goes against the basic tenets of labor and human rights laws!"

The proposed unified contract scheme that was supposed to be implemented on September 1 drew strong opposition from recruitment and manpower agencies, migrant worker groups as well as several Philippine politicians.

Under the proposal, the Saudi National Recruitment Committee (Sanarcom) will act as a middle man that would facilitate the processing of visas of overseas Filipino workers (OFW).

Philippine recruitment agencies that used to deal directly with employers will have to pass through a Saudi recruitment agency that is a member of Sanarcom with the new scheme.

Lawyer Alberto Abalayan, an official from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency said that OFWs would still have to wait in October, when the Philippines and Saudi Arabia meet in Manila to finally put a lid on the issue.

"A final decision on the unified contract scheme would only be reached when representatives from the Philippines and Saudi Arabia meet for a joint commission in Manila next month," he said.

Meanwhile, Migrante's chairperson called on all concerned sectors to make an appeal to Philippine senators who helped defer the implementation to continue opposing until the scheme is totally scrapped.

The Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (Pasei) told GMANews.TV on Wednesday that it was very grateful to lawmakers, notably Senators Manny Villar and Jinggoy Estrada and Rep. Rex Gatchalian, who took interest in the plight of migrant workers as well as the industry’s concerns.

Villar wrote Saudi Ambassador Ameen Wali on August 26 expressing concern over the “unified contract" scheme. Wali later called Villar to say that the implementation of the new rule had been deferred.

“(The) initial intervention of Senator Estrada and Congressman Gatchalian … is a welcome development in the midst of the observed deafening silence of other government agencies that are mandated to protect our OFWs," said the group in a statement last week. - Mark Joseph H. Ubalde, GMANews.TV

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2008 : 10:54:24 PM

Tas Espiritu's Comments on SANARCOM's Unified Contract:

Many politicians and many militant groups always use us (OFWs) for their personal agenda. The Philippine government and its agencies always neglect us and deprive us from the services that we ought to receive from them. They always use us (OFWs) as their milking cow in their many forms of corruption.

Here we are (OFWs) again being used by several groups to halt the implementation of something that will be very beneficial to us. The SANARCOM Unified Contract.

The V-Team KSA has data to prove that most distress cases in Saudi Arabia started during the workers' transaction with the recruitment agencies. The Philippine government agencies are also to blame.

Who are responsible for these violations?

1. Sending a worker with a fictitious name, faked diploma and certificates.
2. Altering the age of the worker to reach the minimum required age.
3. Giving a visit visa to a worker or providing a working visa that is not fit for the worker's profession.
4. Asking for excessive placement fees.
5. Contract substitution
6. illegal transfer of Sponsorship.
7. Neglecting the worker's complaints especially during probationary period.

These are the common abuses that started in Philippines and will result to bigger abuses once the worker will reach to his/her destination. We believe that with the SANARCOM Unified contract, these abuses will be lessened or will be totally wiped out.

Again, the SANARCOM Unified Contract is a pro-worker contract. It is in compliance with the current Saudi Labor Law and Immigration Law. It is a contract to ensure that the recruitment agencies must be involved in the protection of the workers' welfare and rights.

However, the SANARCOM Unified Contract may not be beneficial to the Philippine Recruitment Agencies. Here are their concerns.

Issue 1 - If the warning of PASEI is true that the KSA labor market could follow what happened in
Taiwan, in which brokers buy job orders from employers and let foreign workers pay
exorbitant amounts, then it is not just the Philippine recruiters who are affected but the
workers and the Philippine economy as well.

Now that the implementation of the Unified Contract was postponed, the Philippine government must make a strong statement asking the Saudi Government to make a promise that PASEI's fear must not happen. The Philippine Government should have done that seven years ago when the issue of the Unified Contract first came out.

Issue 2 - According to PASEI that the number dummy members of SANARCOM in Philippines are growing.

The Philippine Government must do something for the interests of legitimate and well-meaning recruitment agencies and other stakeholders like the private multi-national companies – and to avoid cartelization in the recruitment industry. The Philippine Government should have done that seven years ago.

May I suggest that Migrante and PASEI to comment in every provision of the unified contract like that of Ka Ronnie Abeto. They may also suggest for a win-win solution.

PASEI and other Philippine Recruitment agencies must focus on how this SANARCOM Unified Contract will affect their business; instead of using the OFWs.

We the V-Team sympathize with PASEI and we strongly ask the Philippine government to act and find a win-win solution; so that all parties (involved) may benefit once the SANARCOM Unified Contract is implemented.

Gimboy "TAS" Espiritu

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2008 : 05:02:57 AM

Last September 6, 2008 - Dahil sa position namin ni Ka Ronnie tungkol sa usapin ng SANARCOM unified contract. Minabuti ng inyong lingkod na imbitahan ang ating mga kaibigan sa recruitment business para sa isang discreet na talakayan.

Team 1 - Position is that the Unified Contract is a pro-OFW and anti-Recruitment Agency

1. Joseph Henry Espiritu - OFW SOS, Patnubay.com
2. Ronnie Abeto - OFW SOS, Patnubay.com

Team 2 - Position is that the Unified Contract is a anti-OFW and not anti-Recruitment Agency

1. Jun Aguilar - FMW
2. Victor Fernandez - PASEI
3. Hernan Guanco - PASEI

Neutral Position (Documentation Purpose)

1. Romy Tangbawan

Dahil sa napakaganda ng kinalabasan nga ating diskuyson at dahil napaka-informative at educational ng mga points na nai-raise; minabuti po nating ilalagay ang aming napag-diskusyonan sa forum na ito. May mga panahon po na naging emotional ang mga kasali sa diskusyon, pero sana ay maintindihan ng ating mga mambabasa na natural lang isang kuro-kuro ng magkaibang pananaw ang magiging emotional. Yet all parties remain professional at naiclose ang usapin ng maayos. Wala mang naging isang katayuan, hayaan na lang natin ang mga mambabasa na magtimbang at makagawa ng sarili nilang pananaw sa usaping ito.

Invitation : September 6, 2008

Dear ka Jun, Ka Vic and Ka Hernan,

Katulad ni ka ronnie, may kaba din po ako na baka sa implementation ng SANARCOM unified contract ay baka tuluyang mawawala ang mga Philippine Recruitment Agencies. Supportado kayo namin sa labanan na yan.

Pero salungat po tayo ng paniniwala na ang UC ay hindi para sa kapakanan ng mga OFWs. May mga discussions po kami na sarili at pinag-aralan naming mabuti kung nakakasama ba or makaktulong
ba sa aming adbokasya ang UC. at Napag-alaman namin na ang UC ay para sa kapakanan ng mga OFWs at salungat sa inyong mga sinisigaw.

Ito ay sarili ko lang opinion: na ginagamit lang ng mga recruitment agencies ang mga OFWs para makakuha ng simpatiya laban sa SANARCOM Unified Contract, pero ang katotohanan, ang labanang ito
ay para sa mga recruitment business na nanganganib na mawala.

Bakit hindi na lang natin idirikta ang ating pagsigaw sa totoong problema sa halip na i-segue natin ang issue sa aming mga OFWs.

Bilang OFW, pagod na po ako sa pangagamit ng mga politiko at mga grupo sa amin para sa kanilang sariling interest.

Bilang mga kaibigan, bago o luma man. magtulongan tayo na maiparating natin sa tama ang inyong sigaw na walang halong pandamay sa aming mga OFWs.

Nasa baba po yong sarili naming reaction ni Ka Ronnie, at kung pwede rin po sana ay magreact din po kayo sa bawat provision ng Unified Contract.

Naka-attached rin po dito yong current Saudi Labor LAws at at Regulations ng MOI tungkol sa VISA, Iqama at Runaways; para po may references tayo kung ang UC ba ay hindi
naka-aligned sa batas ng saudi arabia.

Buong paggalang po namin at sa hangad na matulongan kayo sa inyong ipinaglaban, nais lang po namin na maisaayos ang ating pagsigaw para may mapatungahan ang ating pinaglalaban.

I also include Ka Romy Tangbawan in this email thread for documentation and for moderation sa bawat topic na ma-iraise.

Maraming salamat,
tas

Gimboy "TAS" Espiritu

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2008 : 05:34:28 AM

September 7, 2008 - Mr. Jun Aguilar wrote his reply in ALL CAPs (for easy identification)
September 8, 2008 - Joseph Espiritu wrote his reply to Jun Aguilar in red-colored text
September 9, 2008 - Mr. Ronnie Abeto wrote his reply to Joseph and Jun Aguilar in italic orange color.

(Note : The lightblue-colored text is Mr. Ronnie Abeto's first comment in every provision of the Unified Contract)

Transcript of Discussions From Day 1 to 3 (Email thread)

From: "Ronnie Abeto"
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:33:44 +0300
To: "Joseph Henry B. Espiritu" ,Jun Aguilar, Vic Fernandez , Hernan Guanco
CC: "Romy Tangbawan"
Subject: RE: ka ronnie and my stand re SANARCOM Contract - this thread is open for discussion

Dear All,

Please find my additional comments and arguments in italic orange color.

In summary, please don't get us wrong that we are pro-SANARCOM, we have to make it clear that we are pro-OFWs and that any laws that guarantees protection and promotion of the rights and welfares of OFWs, we will give our all-out supports.

It is also our interests to support legitimate and conscientious placement agencies like many of you, thereby we are here to disclose our interpretation of the UC and its complications, if there's any.

Regards,

Ka Ronnie

From: Joseph Henry B. Espiritu
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 6:40 PM
To: Jun Aguilar, Vic Fernandez , Hernan Guanco, Ronnie Abeto
Cc: Romy Tangbawan
Subject: Re: ka ronnie and my stand re SANARCOM Contract - this thread is open for discussion

Dear Ka Jun and all,

I wrote my comments in red colored text. Ka Jun, Ka Vic and Ka Hernan,

all of you ay nakausap ko na, sa email , sa phone.. Alam ko yong concerns

nyo for OFWs. Kaya nag-open up kami sa inyo. to dig deeper din sa mga

issues na pwede natin mairaise..

Just consider this as a war-game for the mean time. then we may draw

our own conclusions together. I already had spoken.. and i think nasabi

ko na lahat.

jun aguilar <fsaguilarjr@yahoo.com> on September 7, 2008 wrote:

Dear Ka Ronnie & Tas,

Pls find my reply in CAPS...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guarantees:

THIS IS ALREADY DONE IN THE PAST AND UNTIL NOW. KUNG MAY NANGYAYARI MANG GANITO, HINDI ANG UNIFIED CONTRACT ANG SAGOT.

- from both statements (Ka Ronnie and Ka Jun) , it is clear na both of you agreed

na this specific provision of UC is not Anti-OFW.

- the unified contract ay magiging instrument na ang mga Philippine recruitment

agencies ay magiging mabusisi sa kanilang pagpili ng workers..

- sino ang apektado, yong mga recruitment agencies na binabypass or

yong tumatanggap ng under the table para lang papasa ang worker

sa kanyang health examinations.

- this specific provision is pro-worker dahil sinisiguro na ang worker ay

in good condition ng dumating dito. at kung magkasakit sya dito then

wala ng excuse ang employer na ang sakit na ito ay galing pa sa pilipinas.

(Saudi Labor Law Articles 142-144 and 146.3).

Take note na kapag kukuha ng Iqama ay kailangan pumasa ng worker

sa medical exam. Kaya mabuti na magsigurado na ang health ng worker

sa pilipinas pa lang.

B. The trade of recruited manpower shall be according to the required profession as stated in the conditions supported by certificates and licenses.

This will protect the worker from working other jobs â€“ and will be a just basis in the labor court.

ITO'Y GINAGAWA NA NAMIN MULA UMPISA. AKO MISMO AY ISANG HALIMBAWA NG GANITONG SITWASYON. I HAVE WORKED IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES DIFFERENT FROM MY WORKING VISA. HOW CAN THE UC BE A GUARANTEE TO THIS? PAANO ANG GAGAWIN NINYO DOON SA MGA VISAS NA KALIMITAN KAYSA HINDI AY HINDI AKMA SA TALAGANG TRABAHO? TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WORKERS WILL BE DISPLACED. FOR US WE IMPLEMENT FULL DISCLOSURE POLICY AS EMBODIED IN THE POEA RULES & REGULATIONS. HINDI KAILANGAN ANG UC PARA DITO, MAKAKAGULO LANG YAN.

- from both statements (Ka Ronnie and Ka Jun) , it is clear na both of you agreed

na this specific provision is not Anti-OFW.

- Under Article 80.5 of the Saudi Labor Law - the employer may terminate

the worker who resorts to forgery in order to obtain a job. I know a lot of

distress cases na ang recruitment agencies mismo ang nagencourage sa mga

workers to fake their certificates, diplomas, edad at kahit pangalan names..

Yong iba ay sinuswerte pero yong iba ay napauwi.

- That means ang provision na ito ng unified contract ay para maiwasan yong

magiging problema ng pamemeke ng mga certificates at diploma para masunod

ang Saudi Labor law.

Art. 38 of the SLL â€“ An Employer may not employ the worker in a profession other than the one specified in his work permit. Before following the legal procedures for changing the profession, a worker is prohibited to engage in a profession other than his.

For us UC is still needed to protect our would-be OFWs especially the female workers. Alam mo ba Ka Jun, na more than 3000 female workers were recruited as janitress by Al-Nasban company and deployed to various parts of the Kingdom and worked as â€œcaregiversâ€ sa mga mental hospitals, sa institution for disabled and morons? Hanggang ngayon ni wala pa sa 10% ang nakakauwi sa kabila ng expired na ang kontrata nila since March 2008 pa.

With UC & SANARCOM â€“ we can compel SANARCOM to comply the employer with what was stated in the UC â€“ it is their own laws they violated and we have the agencies who will step up in times like this.

Al-Nasban just like many companies donâ€™t allow their workers to go on exit or on vacation without replacement â€“ with SANARCOM, it would be easy for us to negotiate in this issue â€“ what do you think?

C. Not to reject the work or run away with no justifiable reason.

Basically, running away is a violation against the local laws of Saudi Arabia â€“ therefore it is not new. Only to clarify and put more protection clause in favor of the workers.

THE QUESTION IS WHO WILL JUSTIFY THE REASON AND HOW CAN WE ASCERTAIN THAT THE JUSTIFICATION IS FAIR? DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THE SANARCOM MEMBERS WILL NOT TAKE THE CUDGELS FOR THE FELLOW SAUDIS IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A NEED FOR JUSTIFIED REASON TO RUN AWAY? WHILE THERE ARE VERY FEW WORKERS WHO RUN AWAY WITHOUT JUSTIFIED REASON, I WOULD SAY MOST (99%) OF THOSE WHO DOES ARE VICTIMS OF WORK RELATED INJUSTICE.

Ito yong point ng UC na palaging ginagamit sa media na anti-OFW daw.

Running away is always a violation of the saudi laws. So bakit parang

ang pagtanggap nyo sa point na ito ng UC ay parang ito ay bago at

makakpahamak sa OFW?

Ang kagandahan pa nga nito ay may clause na "with no justified reason"

Allow me to explain to you kung ano ang mangyayari kung may tumatakas.

1. within the 24 hours the employer must report to the authorities about

his ran-away worker. some employers dahil gumagastos ng malaki at

gustong makabawi sa nagastos nila (agency fees, visa and plane ticket)

ay minsan dagdagan ang report na ninakawan sila. in some cases ang

mga kababayan naman natin talaga ay nagnakaw rin.

Pero the main reason bakit kailangan iblotter sa police kaagad dahil

ang employer ang mananagot kung may mangyayari ng masama sa

kanilang workers.

2. The worker must report to his/her embassy at once kung tatakas

sya. yong embassy naman dapat magreport kagad sa authorities ,

kugn sa police ay sa civil rights section. sa emara lalo na sa mga

domestic workers na hindi pwedeng lalapit sa ministry of labor.

for skilled workers ay pwede silang lumapit kaagad sa ministry of

labor at magfile kaagd ng kaso sa kanilang employer.

Yan yong pinakacommon scenarios, yong embassy naman ay ang

nagpapatakas. Hirap daw sila malaman ang lugar, ni agency ay

hindi rin alam. at hindi rin alam kung saan nagtrabaho ang workers.

Hindi ba maganda dito if idagdag sa provision na ito

na kapag amo ang may kasalanan (justified reason) the SANARCOM

has the right to get the worker back.. (na hindi na kailangang

tatakas ng worker)..

Always ang ating adbokasya ay hindi patatakasin ang worker

kundi ipaglaban nag kanyang karapatan sang-ayon sa batas ng

Saudi Arabia. Mas maigi na kausapin ang amo tungkol sa kanyang

violations at iremind na dapat sundin ang provision ng saudi Labor law.

Ngayon, kung may SANARCOM UC hindi ba mas madali para

sa atin na kausapin ang SANARCOM to remind na "hoy yong

employer ni ganito ay hindi sumusunod sa provision ng Saudi

LAbor law, yong iqama worker ang nagbayad, delayed salary

at iba pa"?

Is this point ng UC really an anti-OFW? I dont think so.

In our advocacy, we have our own bad and good experience with the local recruitment agencies in KSA â€“ in your question on who will justify the reasons â€“ EVIDENCE (whether physical, circumstancial or documentary). Delayed salary, maltreatment and physical abuse are easy to justify.

Tama si Ka Joseph, that at least may SANARCOM na mananagot in such cases.

We have to bear in mind that SANARCOM is not just a private recruitment umbrella organization but an accredited member of Chamber of Commerce and is having an office inside the Chamber of Commerce in Dabab St. , Riyadh . There would be an easy access to their office that would give access also to us in our advocacy.

D. The recruited manpower shall not be ever Convicted or not allowed to be recruited prior to elapse of certain period of time due to implementation of certain rules or regulations.

SOP.

ITS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED EVEN WITHOUT THE UC

- again it is not anti-OFW .

2. The First Party undertakes not to receive any amounts from applicants under any settlement except what is allowed by the laws of ( ).

This will protect the workers from excessive placement fees charged by the unscrupulous recruitment agencies.

AGAIN TRY TO LOOK AT THE PROVISION, ITS TOO VAGUE! WHILE THERE ARE UNSCRUPULOUS RECRUITMENT AGENCIES, BAKIT NAMAN KAILANGAN NA PATI KAMI NA GUMAGAWA NG MATINO AT NAKAKATULONG SA MGA WORKERS AY KAILANGANG TAMAAN.

The First Party undertakes not to receive any amounts from applicants under any settlement except what is allowed by the laws of ( PHILIPPINES ).

You must have forgotten that open and close parenthesis.. Kaya blanko yan,

dahil ang UC ay hindi lang para sa philippines kundi sa lahat ng migrant sending

countries. so put (Philippines) inside the parenthesis.

Ano ba ang allowable Placement fee under Philippine Laws, di ba isang buwan

na sahod? if im not mistaken.

is this anti-OFW ? i dont think so.. we workers understand na nakaalign sa

batas ng Philippines na mababayad kami placement fees. ang sa amin

lang protektahan naman kami ng mga recruitment agencies until the end

of our contract.. (Ka Jun i can testify na you are protecting the workers,

pero kunti lang kayo ang alam ko so far)

This provision promotes the interest of legitimate recruitment agencies like you.

3. Both parties agree not to resort to the services of any mediators or any unlicensed parties.

In this provision, if the services of mediator (middlemen) are prohibited then this will be beneficial to the worker in terms of placement fee costs.

This will also protect the worker from abuses like contract substitution and illegal transfer of sponsorship.

THE FMW NEVER HAVE THIS PRACTICE OF MEDIATOR WHETHER HERE OR OVERSEAS. THIS IS ALSO THE REASON WHY I AM TOTALLY AGAINST ANY BROKER LIKE SANARCOM (SILA ANG MIDDLEMEN IN THE CASE OF UC) WHICH WILL JUST BE AN ADDED EXPENSE BY THE WORKER. WE NEVER DEPLOYED ANY SINGLE OFW TO ANY COUNTRY WHICH LEGITIMIZED BROKERING & CARTELLIZED SYSTEM WHICH IS TO US IS UNACCEPTABLE. YOUR ARGUMENT ABOVE CONTRADICTS YOUR STATEMENT, I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO BE CONSISTENT ON THIS ONE.

We might have different understanding in this point ng UC.

still, problema ang na-raise natin. sa akin masolve na problema, sa inyo

ay dagdag problema.

- it was me who inserted that specific comments on ka Ronnies.. because i

wanted to raise na marami din ang problema dahil sa mga middleman dyan

sa pinas, kapag tawagan mo yong recruiter di na natin alam kung ano

ang recruitment agency.

Ka Jun, allow me to explain to you about direct hiring .

normal kasi na processo ay..

Employer - Saudi Recruitment AGency - Phil Recruitment AGency - Worker

(unless the employer is licensed to hire a worker directly Article 30 and 31 of

The Saudi Labor LAw)

You said po na yong isang company sa eastern region ay direktang kumuha

sa yo. siguro, pero under the Saudi Labor Law required ang employer na

dapat na dumaan ng Recruitment Agency dito (KSA) kung sya ay hindi

licensed para maghire ng worker. Pero yong mga employer na ito ay

magbayad lang ng 200SR para magamit lang yong pangalan ng isang

licensed Recruitment agency dito (for formality).

Ang problema kasi nito ay walang Recruitment Agency dito na pupuna sa

Employer kung marami itong violations sa kanyang workers.

ang nangyari sa taas Empolyer - Philippine Recruitment Agency - Worker.

Kung ang employer naman ay didiriktang kukuha ng worker direkta

sa pilipinas na hindi na dadaan ng agency sa atin. Magbayad lang sya ng halaga

sa recruitment agency sa Pilipinas at saka dito (again for formality).

Employer - Worker - ito yong pinakamahirap dahil walang recruitment

agencies na may kasundoan sa employer kung sakali may abuses na

mangyayari..

With the Unified contract ito yong magiging setup

Employer-KSA Recruitment Agency-UC-Phil Recruitment aGency-Worker.

Sa ganitong setup ang UC ay magiging isang kasundoan ng division of

responsibility between two recruitment agencies (Philippines and KSA)

for the protection and welfare of both employer and worker.

Again, I do not see that this point in UC as anti-OFW

4. First party undertakes that the manpower shall arrive to the kingdom within a maximum period of ( ) days from the date of receiving authorization and specifications.

This will speed up the mobilization of the workers and cannot be held up intentionally by the recruitment agencies in exchange of â€œsomethingâ€.

CONTRARY TO YOUR BELIEF, THE UC WILL JUST BE ANOTHER LAYER OF PROCEDURE THAT WILL DELAY OUR PROCESS. HINDI NGA KAMI HUMIHINGI NG LAGAY AT AYAW KO NG LAGAYAN. LALONG MAGKAKAROON NG "IN EXCHANGE OF SOMETHING" KASI MAARING MA-DELAY ANG AMING DEPLOYMENT KUNG WALANG KAKAYAHAN MAGBAYAD ANG WORKER. CURRENTLY, WALA KAMING SITUATIONS NA GANYAN KASI WE CAN DEPLOY THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT MONETARY CONSIDERATIONS.

Again, from your statements this is not anti-OFW..

You are right that it might be contrary to my belief, but my comment is just based on the stated provisions giving the timeline for the mobilization period. You are rare among the recruitment agencies who are not asking â€œin exchange of somethingâ€ â€“ therefore this provision aside from your fear is also favorable to a well-meaning recruiters like you.

5. Second Party undertakes to provide the First Party with all available information about the CLIENT including the address in order to be able to arrive to work site

This is very important â€“ as SOS cases we handled doesnâ€™t know where they are and doesnâ€™t know any contact numbers or exact names of their employer.

LAHAT NG AMING MGA DEPLOYMENTS AY MAYROON NITO, MORE THAN THE UC REQUIREMENT! WE ARE EVEN SHOWING VIDEOS OF THE EMPLOYER SITE OR SHOW THE WEBSITES ON A LARGE SCREEN. PLS. DONT BE MYOPIC ON THOSE SOS CASES YOU ARE HANDLING, KINDLY EXPAND YOUR HORIZONS.

Again both of you agreed na this point is not anti-OFW.. Ka Jun, you are one

of a kind as a recruiter. pero in this point, allow me to tell you that ka Ronnie

is telling the truth. Locating a worker specially a domestic worker ang pinakamahirap.

The recruitment agency is not supporting, false info na ang naiprovide lahat, wala tayong

pwedeng matanungan dito kung saang lugar ang worker. .

We have one rape case 2 months ago, na naka-assign sa disyerto nag worker,

di nya alam ang agency dito, at walang paki ang agency sa pilipinas.

last month din, We have 3 dhs na nadeploy sa jordan, dinala ng among saudi sa al

qurayyat. 3 taon na tapos ang contract.. hindi man lang hinanap ng agency ang amo

kung nasaan na ang worker. naging subject for abuse, dahil walang iqama dahil

hindi naman talaga sila sa Saudi nararapat.

Just lately, we have 1 dh sa al kharj, na 23 months na hindi sinahuran. walang

iqama at kung magkasakit ay di maipasok sa hospital, tinawagan ang agency at

polo sinabihan na tumakas na lang.

All these case were solved with the help of SOS.. Now do you think na kung

may ageement between recruitment agencies of two countries like UC,

ay masolve ang mga problemang ganito ?

i believe na kung responsible lang ang recruitment agencies ay hindi ito

mangyayari. I believe na kung may agencies lang ang mga ito dito ay

hindi ito mangyayari.

We are discussing issues here based on our experience, I am not narrow-minded, Ka Jun and horizons on our advocacy have gone this far already and expanded not only in KSA but as well as other parts of the world. Donâ€™t be too personal, Ka Jun, we just would like to have an extensive discussion on the issue and we are expressing our part as OFW and whatever points we raised herein are based on our knowledge in the SLL, Immigration Law, KSA Judicial law and our experience. You knew very well that we are ground workers in our advocacy and have the first-hand knowledge and touch to each and every OFWs situations â€“ and this is our authority to speak on this issue.

7.A - Arrival transportation, salary and benefits according to the offer of the client.

This will prevent â€œcontract substitutionâ€ as the real salary offered by the Client is the one to be disclosed to the workers.

IYAN DIN NAMAN ANG NAKASAAD SA ATING POEA CONTRACT. THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE EVEN ISSUE A FULL DISCLOSURE TO THE WORKER (AS PER POEA RULES) TO SPECIFY CERTAIN BENEFITS WHICH ARE NOT LISTED ON THE MASTER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. KUNG MAYROONG IBANG LUMALABAG, BAKIT PATI KAMI NA HINDI GUMAGAWA NG GANYAN AY KAILANGANG MAG SUFFER?

Again both of you agreed na this point in UC is not anti-OFW like what many

claimed sa media.. anti human rights pa nga..

If SANARCOM claims that they are aligned with the law of Saudi Arabia

then they must also specify the following.

1. Iqama must be paid by the employer.

2. Medical Insurance, Accidental and Death Insurance under GOSI or its affliliates

(note marami ngayon companies na di makakuha ng visa or nanganganib masara or makulong ang mayari dahil wala silang GOSI.. May mga distressed cases din tayo

na nakakuha ng partial disability benefit worht 50,000SR or 150,000SR permanent

disability benifits, now we are working on the death benefit of Tony Oralde.. all

cases are work-related)

3. 48 - 54 hours of work in a week. overtime kung magexceed nyan.

4. Repatration cost must be shouldered by employer after contract completion.

5. Marami pang iba.

These are under Article 40 of Saudi labor law at dapat lang matutupad.

Ka Jun bilang lang ang mga taong katulad mo sa larangang yan. pero hindi lahat

ng nasa recruitment agencies ay katulad mo, or yong kay ka vic, or yong kay ka

hernan. Pero ang daming OFWs na nagsuffer ngayon, dahil hindi napasaayos

ang kanilang pagpunta dito sa pilipinas pa lang.

We will have no argument on this issue, as this is not anti-OFWs but we can support you all the way to improve this provisions.

B - Second Party has the right to decide the type and means of transportation, method of providing the ticket whether in cash or otherwise according to his decision.

THIS IS NON-SENSE. PAANO KUNG GUSTO NILANG MAGTIPID AT HINDI MUNA IPADALA ANG PARA SA TICKET? SA NGAYON, MY CLIENTS REMIT THE COST FOR AIRFARE DIRECTLY TO US, IN FACT THERE ARE SOME OF OUR WORKERS WHO TRAVELLED BY BUSINESS CLASS BECAUSE WE INSIST TO BUY A COSTLY FARE INSTEAD OF ECONOMY JUST TO EXPEDITE DEPLOYMENT. WE ASSURE OUR CLIENTS THAT WE ONLY ASKED WHAT IS NEEDED AND WE HAVE PROVEN TO THEM THAT WE DONT TRY TO EARN OUT OF THE WORKERS FARE.

this is not anti-OFW either.. it is anti recruitment agency if that is the case. ito yong

gusto naming marinig sa media, hindi yong anti-OFWs..

Since this anti-recruitment agencies and might jeopardize its operation in its entirety, we will support you all the way to revise this provisions.

8. The circumstances and work conditions shall be according to the general rules and regulations applicable in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia .

This warrant the protection of our workers in case â€“ abuses and maltreatment comes.

THERE IS NOTHIN NEW TO THIS PROVISION, THIS IS ALREADY EMBODIED IN THE STANDARD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.

again not anti-OFW.

The UC is liable to the laws of KSA, Standard Employment Contract is not and oftentimes (in our experience) has been thrown into trash can by the SLO arbiters.

9. The work contract in force is the one presented by the second party (approved in the kingdom) in his capacity as the employer's representative.

Again â€“ this is transparency and will avoid â€œcontract substitutionâ€

THIS IS WHERE THE DANGER LIES! WHAT IF THEY FORCE THE WORKER SIGN THE DOCS.

Ka jun, this is not new, lahat naman ng contract ay dito talaga galing. ang sa atin

lang is to ask the second party.. to follow what is stated in the laws of the kingdom.

As what the UC claimed they are aligned with the law.

As an OFW, I can say that with the UC at mailatag ang responsibilities ng

recruitment agencies towards the worker ay napakagaan na sa amin. Ngayon

maliban sa ministry of labor, emara, embassy or polo , ay may SANARCOM

pa tayong pwedeng kalampagin kung may abuses na ginagawa ang employer.

What SANARCOM said in this provision is that â€“ the Contract to be presented to the worker in the Philippines is the one that they approved and in accordance with the governing laws of Saudi Arabia â€“ and this is what I called as â€œtransparencyâ€.

And this UC must align also with our Philippine laws â€“ this is what we have to fight for.

THIS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE IN NLRC OR ANY LINE AGENCIES OF THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT. THE FIRST PARTY WILL STILL BE LIABLE UNDER THE JSL.

again i dont see it as an anti-OFW..

Eto po iyong tinutukoy na probisyon sa talatang ito at wala naman po akong nakikitang masama dito dahil nangyayari naman po ito sa mga name-hire at mag-iiwas pa sa philippine recruitment agencysa anumang pananagutan katulad ng isinasaad sa itaas. Ang JSL na sinasabi mo po ay tinutupad ng iilan lang katulad ninyo.

1. First party shall guarantee deployed manpower for a period of (90) ninety days of arrival to the kingdom and such guarantee shall include the following:

Guarantees:

I suggests to Migrante to go over the UC before making such comments and they will find out that it will help advocacy groups in our advocacies and assisting distressed workers.

LOOK AT THAT! SILA ANG MAGIINTERVIEW AT PIPILI NG WORKER PERO ANG FIRST PARTY PA RIN ANG MAY RESPONSIBILIDAD AT GARANTIYA, AND YOU CALL THIS FAIR?

again this is not anti-OFW ka jun.. this is anti recruitment agency.

Eto po iyong tinutukoy na probisyon sa talatang ito at wala naman po akong nakikitang kaibahan at di-parehas dahil kalimitan naman po itong nangyayari na ang mga nagpupunta para mag-interview ay kung hindi ang employer mismo ay iyong kinatawan nila (na maaring agency dito) â€“ tapos ang responsibilidad ng agency sa atin ay ang pagpapa-deploy at ipa-medical ang aplikante para masiguradong malusog ito at fit sa trabaho â€“ na siya ring batas sa ating bansa â€“ so bakit mo po nasabing hindi ito parehas? At katulad ng nasabi ni Ka Joseph, hindi po ito laban sa OFW.

1. First party shall guarantee deployed manpower for a period of (90) ninety days of arrival to the kingdom and such guarantee shall include the following:

Guarantees:

This comment is only for the purposes of clarification on Migranteâ€™s claims as â€œagainst the basic tenets of labor and human rights lawsâ€.

Pangtapos:

Many Philippine Recruitment Agencies who claimed not to ask any placement fee

sa isang worker ay hindi naman totoo dahil pagdating dito ay sininsigil ito ng

employer as per agreement ng employer at ng Philippine Recruitment Agency.

Pero tingnan nyo ito, Under Article 40.1 of the Saudi Labor Law, obligation ng

employer na bayaran ang recruitment fees at hindi ng worker.

Para madaling maintindihan, obligasyon ng employer na bayaran ang recruitment

agencies (KSA) sa paghire ng worker..

Samantalang sa batas naman ng Pinas, obligasyon maningil ng Recruitment agency

ng Pinas na singilin ng Placement fee ang isang worker.

If ang UC ay supported ng Saudi Government and if UC is true na

they are aligned with the existing laws of the kingdom, then walang

ibang babayaran ang isang worker kundi yong recruitment agency

lang sa atin..

The philippine Government also must listen to the needs of the

recruitment agencies .. again as i had said malamang ay mawawala

at malulugi or magsara katulad noong abrupt implementation of

400USD minimum wage ng worker. Dapat din tanggalin ng

Philippine Government yong dummy recruitment agencies.

As why i always use the laws of the kingdom kaysa laws ng

Pilipinas. nandito po kami sa saudi, napabilang sa mga OFWs

at natural lang na ang batas dito ang magiging batayan namin.

September 7, 2008, jun aguilar <fsaguilarjr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Ka Ronnie & Tas,

Pls find my reply in CAPS...

--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Joseph Henry B. Espiritu <jim_espiritu@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Joseph Henry B. Espiritu
Subject: RE: Discreet : ka ronnie and my stand re SANARCOM Contract - this thread is open for discussion
To: Jun Aguilar, Vic Fernandez , Hernan Guanco, Ronnie Abeto
Cc: "Romy Tangbawan"
Date: Saturday, 6 September, 2008, 10:23 PM

Dear all,

I remove pasei's email in the address list and add ka hernan's

email address. Ka hernan and all recipients may reply to this

thread for easy documentation.

Regards,

Joseph

Ronnie Abeto <Abeto.Ronnie@snamprogetti.eni.it> wrote:

Additional comments:

We need transparency in this issue; we need to know from all of you what you know behind this issue in order for us to direct ourselves, as NGOs who are in the frontline of this advocacy.

We need to know why Ka Jun commented the following:

the ill motives as to why SANARCOM is moving heaven & earth to have the Unified Contract implemented. Its all about money and not what they claim to have a responsive entity who could act as guardians of the Employer-Employee relationship.
If this Unified Contract will be allowed, Agencies like IPAMS, ISD, STAFF HOUSE, FMW and few more who adhere to NO PLACEMENT FEE can no longer serve their clients directly.
Moreover, there are several provisions in the Unified Contract that are obviously unacceptable to the Workers and the Philippine based Agency.

V-Team is always in support to protect the Philippines and its migrant citizens, but we need to know if we are supporting legitimate cause. As narrated by Ka Joseph, we found the UC as pro-OFWs and anti-recruiting agencies, you may correct us if we are wrong.

Our 2001 position remains the same, While other groups may have additional specific reasons in demanding that the SANARCOM Unified Contract be held in abeyance, the above-mentioned issues alone should be enough to stop its implementation. A new one, which will be just, fair and equitable to the workers and all parties concerned, should be crafted in its place. (2001 eLagda email to then DOLE Secretary Pat Sto Tomas â€“ signed on behalf of eLagda â€“ Riyadh by the late Dr. Alfred Ganapin)

We require thorough discussions with you in order for us to arrive into a pro-active statement, otherwise we will maintain our position as above.

Yours truly,

Ka Ronnie

From: Joseph Henry B. Espiritu
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 9:14 PM
To: Jun Aguilar, Vic Fernandez , Hernan Guanco, Ronnie Abeto
Cc: Romy Tangbawan
Subject: Discreet : ka ronnie and my stand re SANARCOM Contract - this thread is open for discussion

Dear ka Jun, Ka Vic and Ka Hernan,

Katulad ni ka ronnie, may kaba din po ako na baka sa implementation

ng SANARCOM unified contract ay baka tuluyang mawawala ang

mga Philippine Recruitment Agencies. Supportado kayo namin sa

labanan na yan.

HINDI NAMAN MAWAWALA ANG MGA RECRUITMENT AGENCIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WILL AGREE ON THE SANARCOM PROCEDURE. THEY SIMPLY HAVE TO SWALLOW WHAT THE SANARCOM MEMBER WILL SLAM ON THEIR THROAT. LET ME GIVE YOU A VERY GLARING EXAMPLE.

MY CLIENT IN DAMMAM FOR 9 YEARS WHO EMPLOYS OVER 600 FMW'S DEALS DIRECTLY WITH US, THEY PAY A REASONABLE FEE FOR OUR SERVICES WHICH ALLOWS US NOT TO COLLECT MONEY FROM THE WORKERS. WITH THE UNIFIED CONTRACT, WE NEED TO ENGAGE A SAUDI LOCAL RECRUITMENT AGENT (WHO MUST BE A SANARCOM MEMBER) TO PROCESS A UNIFIED CONTRACT. OF COURSE THEY WILL HAVE TO CHARGE MY CLIENT A FEE WHICH WILL NO LONGER BE IN OUR CONTROL AND THEN PROVIDE US THE JOB ORDER UNDER THEIR NAME. DEFINITELY THEY WILL HAVE TO KEEP THE FEES AND WILL SIMPLY OBLIGE US TO COLLECT THE ONE MONTH EQUIVALENT OF THE WORKERS SALARY AS PER POEA RULES. LABAG SA PRINSIPYO NG FMW (AT NG IBA PA) ANG KUMULEKTA SUBALIT KAPAG HINDI KO TINANGGAP ANG GANONG SET-UP PWEDENG IBIGAY NG SANARCOM ANG AKING CLIENT SA KANINO MANG AGENCY (AS I MENTIONED, LAHAT SILA AY MAY KANYA-KANYANG AGENCY DITO SA PINAS). SO ANO ANG EPEKTO NITO, HINDI BA ANG WORKER ANG TATAMAAN? PAANO ITO NAGING PRO-WORKER?

KUNG PERA LANG ANG AMING GUSTO, WALANG DAHILAN PARA HINDI KAMI KUMULEKTA NG GANOON KALAKING HALAGA SA MGA MANGGAGAWA.

NOW LET ME ASK ALL OF YOU, IS THIS REALLY PRO WORKER?

Pero salungat po tayo ng paniniwala na ang UC ay hindi para

sa kapakanan ng mga OFWs. May mga discussions po kami na

sarili at pinag-aralan naming mabuti kung nakakasama ba or makaktulong

ba sa aming adbokasya ang UC. at Napag-alaman namin na ang UC

ay para sa kapakanan ng mga OFWs at salungat sa inyong mga

sinisigaw.

ANG AKING ISINISIGAW AY HINDI SUMASALUNGAT SA INYONG ADBOKASIYA. I WILL BET MY WHOLE LIFE THAT THIS UNIFIED CONTRACT WONT BE GOOD FOR THE OFW'S AT MAGIGING ISANG PAHIRAP LAMANG SA MGA MANGGAGAWA. ALAM KO NA MAY APPREHENSION KAYO KAPAG ANG NARIRINIG NINYO AY GALING SA MGA OPISYAL NG RECRUITMENT AGENCIES SANA AY MAGING OBJECTIVE TAYO AT IMULAT NINYONG MABUTI ANG MGA MATA NINYO SA ISYUNG ITO. ALAMIN NINYONG MABUTI KUNG SINO-SINO BA ANG MGA TAONG NASA LIKOD NG SANARCOM AT BAKIT KAILANGAN ANG ANOTHER LAYER FOR RECRUITING OUR WORKERS.

Ito ay sarili ko lang opinion: na ginagamit lang ng mga recruitment

agencies ang mga OFWs para makakuha ng simpatiya laban sa

SANARCOM Unified Contract, pero ang katotohanan, ang labanang ito ay para sa mga recruitment business na nanganganib na mawala.

I CANNOT SPEAK FOR ALL RECRUITMENT AGENCIES DAHIL ALAM KO NAMAN NA MARAMI ANG WALANGHIYA SA RECRUITMENT INDUSTRY. BUT LET ME EMPHASIZE THAT I WONT USE ANYONE OF YOU JUST FOR MY OWN INTEREST. ELLEN SANA AND EVEN CONNIE OF MIGRANTE HAVE SEEN HOW I STOOD UP FOR THE CAUSE OF THE OFW'S IN VARIOUS COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND FORUMS HERE AT HOME. AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, HINDI TOTALLY MAWAWALA ANG MGA RECRUITMENT AGENCIES KUNG NAKAHANDANG MAKIPAG SABWATAN OR COOPERATE WITH SANARCOM MEMBERS. TINGNAN NINYO ANG HONGKONG AT TAIWAN MARKET NA MAY HALOS GANYANG SISTEMA, NAWALA BA ANG AGENCIES? SINO ANG NAGPAPASAN NG HIRAP, HINDI BA ANG MGA WORKERS?

Bakit hindi na lang natin idirikta ang ating pagsigaw sa totoong

problema sa halip na i-segue natin ang issue sa aming mga OFWs.

ANG TOTOONG PROBLEMA AY SINABI KO NA, HINDI SAGOT ANG UNIFIED CONTRACT AY HINDI GARANTIYA NA BUBUTI ANG SITWASYON NG MGA OFW DAHIL SA UC.

Bilang OFW, pagod na po ako sa pangagamit ng mga politiko at

mga grupo sa amin para sa kanilang sariling interest.

TAMA KA TAS, AKO MAN KATULAD DIN NINYONG LUMALABAN SA ANO MANG PANGGAGAMIT NG MGA PULITIKO AT GRUPO SA SARILING INTEREST. MARAMI RIN AKONG NA ENCOUNTER NA NGO'S (KUNO) NA GINAGAMIT ANG SEKTOR SA KANI-KANYANG AGENDA. IN FACT MARAMI ANG NAGSUSULPUTAN LALO NA KAPAG MALAPIT NA ANG HALALAN.

Bilang mga kaibigan, bago o luma man. magtulongan tayo na

maiparating natin sa tama ang inyong sigaw na walang halong

pandamay sa aming mga OFWs.

TAS, KAPAG AKO ANG SUMIGAW NG FOUL, FOUL TALAGA YAN. I HAVE ALWAYS CALLED A SPADE A SPADE. WALA AKONG PAKIALAM KUNG SINO ANG NASA HARAPAN O NASA LIKURAN KO. KAYA KUNG TUMAYO SA HARAPAN NINYONG LAHAT NG WALANG PAG-AALINLANGAN. RERESPETUHIN KO ANG INYONG STATEMENT AT MGA OPINYON SA KABILA NG DI MAG KATUGMANG PANANAW.

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2008 : 05:52:04 AM

September 9, 2008

Mr. Jun Aguilar - wrote his reply to Joseph Espiritu
Joseph Espiritu - Answers Mr. Aguilar's reply in two emails.

Transcript (Email Thread)

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 02:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Joseph Henry B. Espiritu"
Subject: Thread 2 ...: ka ronnie and my stand re SANARCOM Contract - this thread is open for discussion
To: Jun Aguilar, Victor Fernandez, Hernan Guanco, Ronnie Abeto
CC: Romy Tangbawan

Dear Ka Jun,

Here are my answers to your last email again in red colored text..

Are the properly employed OFWs that you mentioned ay yong mga existing

workers na dito sa saudi na walang problema ? If yes, please give us the provision

from the Unified Contract na nagsasaad na ganito ang mangyayari.

If ever sure ka na pati yong mga existing workers ay isasali sa UC.. then ano naman

po ang magiging negative impact nito sa kanila maliban sa "abala??"?

Pero if we look at the positive aspect, those properly employed will be more

protected, hindi natin alam ang distress situation kung kailan darating like accidents;

minsan doon mo lang malaman hindi pala member ng GOSI or hindi pala kaya sagutin

ng company ang hospitalization or disability benefits. like sa ESB, marami

mga OFWs walang problema sa employer pero pagdating na sa bigayan ng

ESB ay saka nagkaproblema.

Yes they can always file a case sa Saudi Labor Office, pero di ba malaking

bagay din kung may UC na dagdag protection sa kanila. With UC, if implemented
well, ay masupress ang mga magiging problema.

Out of one Million OFW's in KSA, how many are having the same predicament of what you have cited that needs the UC? 1 % , 2 %? Why do we need a sweeping contract like the UC hatched by a private entity to be imposed on us?

In my opinion If all newly hired workers will be under UC then there will be an

assurance na maprotektahan ang OFWs until his contract completion.

1% or 2 % is too small.. ka jun pero kahit 1 percent pa yan, buhay pa rin yan. Marami

pa dyan na hindi nakalagay sa ayos na hindi pa nagkaproblema pero pagdating ng

time ay magkakaproblema pa rin.

Kagabi lang na case, isang ofw na pumunta dito last feb 2007, as driver pero

yong visa at iqama nya ay isang waiter. Naaksidente.. ano ang nangyari hindi

sya covered ng GOSI for disability benefit, dahil hindi maconsider na

work related ang kanyang pagkaaksdente. walang restaurant ang amo,

ginawa syang company driver. Pero sa contract sa poea ay waiter pero ang

trabaho dito ay driver?

tanungin mo sya kung ano ang recruitment agency nya dito. di nya alam.

matatapos na sana ang contract nya ngayong february.. kaso ngayon

baldado yong tao, tsk tsk kung nasa ayos lang sana yong visa at

contract nya sa umpisa..

heto pa, tinanong ko kung magkano ang sahod nya sabi sa pilipinas ay

900sr daw pagdating dito ay 600sr na lang. tinanong ko ngayon kung

hindi ba sya nagreklamo sa Agency sa Pilipinas, sabi nya sabi ng

agency sa Pilipinas, hindi na nila control yan.

Ngayon, are we going to fight for his rights, yes we will, kawawa ang

tao.. pero as advocate, we wish we wish na sana walang deceptions

na ginawa yong recruitment agency at employer sa kanya.

Exactly, RA8042 must be respected hindi lang ng recruitment agencies kundi pati

Philippine government agencies like embassy, owwa etc.(na sila mismo ay hindi

nga alam ang batas na ito kahit 13 years na nagexist ito.)

Pero hindi po ba maganda kung may undertaking ang recruitment agencies ng

sending at receiving countries for the protection of OFWs like that of UC aside from

these laws, RA8042, Saudi Labor Law. ?

Di ba mas maganda kung may undertaking ang dalawang recruitment agencies
ng dalawang bansa kung ano ang mga responsibilities nila sa bawat worker at employer?

As i had said in my previous email, in Philippine Law, it is legal to ask a placement fee

to a worker (again if im not mistaken, it must be equivalent to a one month salary).

in Saudi Labor Law, the employer must pay for the recruitment fees and not the worker.

so what is new ? bakit lalaki ba ang placement ng OFW kung susundin lang ng

mga recruitment agencies ang batas ng kani-kanilang countries? Maliban lang kung

ang mga recruitment agencies ay magdagdag ng singil sa workers.

Again, many recruitment agencies who claimed not to ask for placement fees

sa worker ay hindi naman talaga totoo lahat.. dahil pagdating ng worker dito ay

sinisingil pa sila ng amo para sa placement fee na dapat ang worker ang nagbayad.

(as per agreement ng employer at ng recruitment agency sa pinas).. dito pa lang

may deception na.)

Katulad ng ARAMCO, RKH, KFNGH, KFSHRC, SABIC, NIC, and other top Employers in the Kingdom that gainly employs hundreds of thousands OFW's, do they need UC?

The workers who work for these companies must be very lucky..Do they need the UC ?

They may or they may not.. pero wala rin namang masama kung ang mga newly hired

workers nila ay isasali sa UC. These are top companies and if the Saudi Government

will say that all newly hired workers for these companies must be subjected to UC..

Do you think these companies will oppose? I dont think so.

We have three Employers in FMW amongst the top 100 Corporations in KSA employing thousands of our members, we dont need that UC!

Ka Jun, Saudization ay naimplement na ,, in fact these companies na sinasabi mo

ay nag-umpisa ng kukuha ng workers thru sub-contractors. yes they work for that

big company but ang employer nila ay yong nasa sub-contracting company na...

Fact, ang daming kaso natin sa mga workers who are working under a subcontractor.

I believe this needs the UC..

Tas, If I dont know who are these people in SANARCOM and I dont know whats their real intent in having this bloody UC, baka magisip pa ako. Siguro iyan ang dapat din ninyong alamin baka makatulong sa parehas nating pananaw. Kung convinced ako na makakatulong ito sa mas nakakaraming OFW's, sisiguruhin ko sa inyo na ako ang isa sa mangunguna para maipatupad ito. Pero sa porma nitong SANARCOM at ng UC, i can tell you straight, NO WAY!

- this is the real issue and the recruitment agency should have focused on this issue.

How about if hindi SANARCOM ang nag lead sa UC will you support na kaya?

Again thru this war game, magiging handa na tayo kung sakali may open discussion

about this UC.

Best Regards,

tas.

"Joseph Henry B. Espiritu" <jim_espiritu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Ka Jun,

Thank you so much sa mabilis na talakayan. Allow me to share to you

the points we raised during the first phase V-Team's internal discussion

on this issue..

From: Joseph Henry B. Espiritu [mailto:jim_espiritu@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:51 PM
To: Joseph Henry B. Espiritu; Yerro William ; ellenesana@yahoo.com; Ronnie Abeto; ronnie abeto
Cc: vic barrazona; mike bolos; Rolando Blanco; alex asuncion (gmail)
Subject: I guess this is how to do it if im PRO sANARCOM

Sensya na paalis me ngayon.. i know you have lots of things to

say..let me reiterate na this is still a role playing.

1. Attack SANARCOM -

- that it is a business entity at kung aatasan ng gobyerno ng saudi arabia

to play a lead role in contracting of workers, labor issues, immigration

issues. ay mawala na yong spirit of fair play. most likely ang protektahan

nyang una ay ang kaniyang mga clients , ang mga emploeyrs. second

protektahan ang kanilang mga members,, the recruitment agencies dito.

Note: na if sa isang recruitment agency na lang ay nahihirapan tayo how

much more kung malaking organization like SANARCOM na ang ating

ppuntiryahin.

All these doubts will be removed if , SANARCOM will ensure that

all provisions of the SAUdi labor law is followed, the immigration law

and the social insurance law (GOSI).

2. Will the Saudi Labor Office and the Ministry of Labor.. or the

JAwasat remain independent at hindi ipasa na lang ang responsibility

sa SANARCOM ?

3. Will SANARCOM assure us that all their members must strictly

implement based on the existing laws of the Kingdom. and that they

must punish or ban abusive recruiters..

4. what are they going to do with the existing 1 million ofws in the

Kingdom. are they obligated for the unified contract?

5. Ask SANARCOM to respect and honor any representation from

our embassy, labor offices..

6. That SANARCOM must not be exclussively for the recruitment

agencies sa philippines na member nila.

Regards,

joseph

Ka Jun, I will answer your email pagdating ko mamaya from work.

Best Regards,

tas

jun aguilar <fsaguilarjr@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Tas,

We got no quarel in bringing the best protection for the OFW's anywhere they are, in fact I salute you and the V-Team for doing the things which are supposed to be done by the welfare officers in OWWA that is fully budgetted by us OFW's. The problem lies on how we view the problem. As advocates, I cannot blame your team to see the Unified Contract as a dose of cure all medicine to the lingering problems of our workers.

Try to check your figures of runaways and distressed workers against the number of properly employed OFW's in the Kingdom na gustong isama sa process ng UC of SANARCOM, i can assure you it will pale in comparison. Out of one Million OFW's in KSA, how many are having the same predicament of what you have cited that needs the UC? 1 % , 2 %? Why do we need a sweeping contract like the UC hatched by a private entity to be imposed on us?

What I would suggest is to strengthen the implementation of our laws (its more than enough to safeguard the OFW's). Whoever is sleeping on their job and remissed on their duties must be made to answer and fired. Recruitment Agencies who are found violating the rules must be stripped of their license and made to pay for their acts based on what is prescribed by RA 8042. We dont need to have a SANARCOM UC to solve our OFW's problem. If we allow this new imposition by the KSA government, it will set a precedent that will snowball to the detriment of the Filipinos including other sending countries. There is no doubt that the SANARCOM is having ulterior motive in cartellizing the recruitment of OFW's patterned after the GAMCA, and if we allow that, its the OFW's and the legitimate Agencies who will be greatly affected.

Paano mo sasabihin na hindi anti-ofw ang isang sitwasyon na dati rati hindi mo kailangang mag-intindi ng pambayad sa placement fee, pero dahil sa UC kailangan mo ng magbayad? Huwag sana ninyong tingnan ang situation based on the cases of Household Workers kung saan mataas ang occurence ng argumento ninyo. Tingnan sana natin ang kabuoan, on a macro-level. Katulad ng ARAMCO, RKH, KFNGH, KFSHRC, SABIC, NIC, and other top Employers in the Kingdom that gainly employs hundreds of thousands OFW's, do they need UC? We have three Employers in FMW amongst the top 100 Corporations in KSA employing thousands of our members, we dont need that UC!

As you said lets consider this exchanges as a war game.

Cheers!
Jun

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2008 : 06:08:46 AM

September 9, 2008 - Mr. Ronnie Abeto wrote his reply to Mr. Jun Aguilar's last email.

Ronnie Abeto wrote:

Ka Jun,

Sorry for the delayed reply, I had already sent my additional comments before I’ve got this email kasi napupunta sa Junk mail folder ang mga emails ninyo na ito and I have to recover it.

We knew you are not into quarrel with us although your initial comments on our email sounds too emotional and may personal na atake pa.

I knew how you are debatable in such issues medyo nagulat nga lang ako sa mga sagot mo sa email namin ni Ka Joseph at sinabihan mo pa kami na myopic at kailangan naming e-expand ang horizon namin – na para bang nais mong sabihin na ganon kami kaliit at kakitid ang isip at ang mundong aming ginagalawan.

Salamat naman sa pagsaludo mo sa gawain at kilos ng V-Team although parang salungat ito sa pagkakasabi mo sa amin ng myopic at i-expand ang horizons namin – it will be our consolations that will ignore your earlier comments.

There is no doubt that you are right in your statement that we do not need this UC just to safeguard the interests and welfare of our OFWs, and this discussion is aiming in that direction. We would like to explore the strong arguments why we want to kill UC and this argument must be based on facts and provisions of the law; we have to show that this contradicts the Philippine laws and that our laws are sufficient enough to guaranteed protection of all the role players.

And to put into record, my press statement is just to answer the sweeping statement of Migrante that UC is against the basic tenets of labor and human rights law; I replied to this point by point to counter the allegations of Migrante but that does not mean that I am in favor of its implementation.

We would like also to avoid using the OFWs as an excuse or a tool to substantiate the claims or their vested interests; we can hit the target directly through its weakest point.

We lauded your being with us in our advocacy.

Regards,
Ka Ronnie

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2008 : 06:21:41 AM

September 9, 2008 - Mr. Vic Fernandez wrote his points why PASEI members oppose the SANARCOM Unified contract.

Transcript : (Email)

Dear Ka TAS (Joseph Henry B. Espiritu),

Maraming salamat sa September 6 email mo, "re: your stand on SANARCOM Contract… Discreet and open for discussion."

I apologize for replying only now because we are pre-occupied in truly working to protect the interests of the OCWs…. and in meeting with various interest groups, etc. for the same reason.

I know that our and my personal position as President of the recruitment agencies in the Philippines are always suspect. But nonetheless the threat of ABUSE AND OPPRESSION of our OCWs from the Unified Contract of SANARCOM is REAL.

Kindly try to look at this from our perspective even if we are not on the same side this time but which I hope I can get Mr. Ronnie to move towards our point of view for the sake of the OCW after appreciating my explanation.

REALITIES WHERE WE ARE COMING, SO TO SPEAK:

We are not afraid to lose any market. If we ever lose the Saudi market or the Middle East market, new and better opportunities for our recruits are opening like Australia, New Zealand, the entire of Canada, Europe such as Finland, France, Spain, Italy and other ageing European countries, the Americas and very soon Guam. Salaries, conditions there and employment terms are much, much better.

There is a growing resistance and fatigue coming from highly skilled, medical staff and technical workers [experienced locally or already from abroad], to go to the Middle East. Arab Employers are trying to out match each other now just to recruit Filipino skilled and technical workers. Proof of this is higher salaries for Engineers, Technical workers, medical staff are being offered now to Filipino workers just for them to be enticed to go and work in the Middle East.

Recruitment Agencies will not completely disappear with the lost of the Middle East labor market. Philippine recruiters will only be replaced by foreign-owned recruitment agencies who will hire, recruit, deploy Filipino workers to their counter-part fellow nationals owning recruitment agencies in their countries or to their very own recruitment agencies in KSA.

Professional and ethical Filipino recruitment agencies will move to other first world labor market. They will not vanish or disappear.

PASEI and especially undersigned is not creating a grim scenario or illusion of grave threat to our OCWs. The DANGERS ARE REAL as I will illustrate later.
Our association's motive is to protect our OCWs from abuses (committed by foreign recruiters and even by fellow Filipino recruiters on the Filipino OCWs and by Employers). At least, please credit us with this.

With above "Realities" given, please consider the following why we claim that the

Unified Contract is anti-OCW, unjust, unfair, cruel and will legitimize abuses, oppression and promote contract substitution to the detriment of the OCWs.

My advice when reading my comments or reactions:

1. Kindly take the Unified Contract as a whole, in toto, for they are interlocking in their effects on the Filipino OCWs.

2. Connect my arguments with Philippine setting when you process my arguments that the Unified Contract does not promote human or migrant rights and works contrary to our Labor Laws and R.A. 8042.

I will first answer the points raised as itemized, letter by letter, and as listed in Mr. Ronnie's email.

A. HEALTHY AND WITHOUT MENTAL DISORDERS.

PLEASE BE INFORMED THIS IS NOT NEW TO US….RECRUITERS.

Part of the requirements for the grant of a license to us by DOLE/POEA is our submission of an undertaking that we "shall only deploy medically, physically, psychologically fit workers" qualified for the job. So, we have long been practicing this basic procedure. No thanks to the Unified Contract.

Not even a stupid recruiter will deploy knowingly an unfit worker because we have an agreement with the Employer that within the 3-months probationary period, the worker can by replaced by the Employer for whatever reason. In fact, because this is the law, this is even subject to abuse by the Employer (against us and the worker) when the worker is sent home…. without salary, for no apparent or for the flimsiest reason and replacement is demanded.

By the way, are you against psychiatric test to be conducted on Household Workers? If you say NO, we are on the same side. If you say yes, then tell me how to discern someone with mental disorder? Tell me how to prevent someone from "snapping" because of the environment or situation he/she is subjected too? How do you discover some suicidal or criminal tendencies or inclination of someone from merely conducting an interview without the probing tool of a psychiatric test?

So our government, now more than ever, wants to impose ON US RECRUITERS (without need of the Unified Contract) stricter medical examinations procedure "to avoid similar or situation happening again what did happen in the past."

The government of KSA wants to control the medical examinations of workers through the GAMCA. Do you agree with this? IF you will say yes, please consider the implications which our government had allowed. Do you know that these medical clinics, member of GAMCA, now take orders and instructions from the GCC Council of Health Ministers to the point of disregarding direct instructions of our Department of Health? Do you know that the only reason these GAMCA clinics gave us as to why they do so (take orders from foreign entities) is because they do not want to lose their GCC accreditation? Therefore, pera-pera lang yan and they are even brave enough in disobeying our DOH because our government did and do nothing about it. PASEI filed a case against GAMCA and to date it is still pending in the Court of Appeals.

Because the dictate from abroad was successful in GAMCA, now SANARCOM saw an opportunity to convince their government to funnel through them the authority to collect VISAS for a FEE.

This is now implemented and mandatory and we have to follow, the Saudi Employers have to obey and pay extra expense all because the SANARCOM lost income from the Domestic Helper market. But this extra or compensatory income for lost DH business is no longer enough for SANARCOM and so this onerous Unified Contract was again resurrected.

B. TRADE AND PROFESSION

It is our professional job to identify and recruit the best qualified person for the job ordered or manpower requested from us by the Employer.

It is stupid for us just to deploy anyone (as this is part of our Undertaking with POEA) who is not qualified because –

The worker will just be sent back and we will have a financial liability with the worker and even may cause the cancellation or suspension of our license.

We will have to replace the worker.

We will eventually lose the Employer.

It is always the Employer who tells us which visa to use in the event his actual requirement do not match the visa category issued to him by his government.

Under the Unified Contract, the worker is PROTECTIONLESS when brought to the Labor Court in the event the worker complains about him being hired and a different visa is used for him under the Unified Contract. But with us – Recruiters – and without the Unified Contract, we demand to have an amended J.O. or Visa Usage Allocation Undertaking signed by the Employer. The worker will not know or will be informed of this under the Unified Contract. Once the worker legally files a complaint in the Labor Court, he will lose his day in Court because his visa category may not match with his actual skills making his case or complaint moot and baseless and be unable to reject the work being forced on him.

(See Item 9.A of the Unified Contract)

This is what I mean when I mentioned in my Item 1 (advice when reading my comments) to take the provisions in the Unified Contract as a WHOLE, not independent from each other.

The SANARCOM recruiter, just to fill the positions, can "request by name" anyone who can pay even if the TRADE is INCORRECT. The SANARCOM have this authority and power; the worker will just be compelled to agree. On the other hand, the Philippine Recruiter (because he thought the medical examination is his only responsibility from this "worker requested" arrangement ordered by the SANARCOM) will think this selection has the knowledge and consent of the Employer; but later, when the Employer complains and rejects the worker for being UNQUALIFIED (and the worker CANNOT COMPLAIN because he was indeed selected by the SANARCOM "by request" as the worker to be deployed even if not suited for the job), the SANARCOM can invoke item 10.A…. of demanding a replacement if he (the worker) is not professional in his trade or not according to the required condition or specification of the Employer. Who then will suffer? Who will pay for the replacement cost and the cost of the repatriation because the worker will be terminated within the 3-months probation period? Not the recruiter because it was a "requested worker." Will the cost be borne by SANARCOM? DEFINITELY NOT!

It will be the worker who will have to work without pay to be able to but a ticket back to Manila. The worker will be forced to pay because he is rejecting he job which is a violation in the Unified Contract. Is this how the Unified Contract will protect the worker?

A recruiter do checks the certificates and experience of the worker. It is sometimes the worker who submits false trade test results, fake training certificates or certificates of employment or licenses/diplomas, etc. just to get the job.

C. NOT TO REJECT THE WORK

You did not comment on this.

But allow me. What will a Domestic Helper, Dressmaker, Family Cook, Caregiver, Babysitter, Private Duty Nurse, Nanny do or how will they react or reply if the Khafil ask her to perform on him a body massage, or to bathe him or whatever? Will the worker not reject the work?

What if a Driver is asked to do electrical, plumbing, gardening or carpentry jobs? Or a Computer Programmer is asked to do groceries for the family? Or an Office Clerk who knows how to drive is asked to drive the children to school or drive the Madam to her parties at night or do errands? Can he not reject the work?

WORKER HAS NO RIGHT TO OBJECT?

C-2. NOT TO …. RUN AWAY

We know that to strike, to form a labor union or to abandon ones work or job is against the law.

But what about running away from a very oppressive environment? What about from being molested? This happens to both men or women. Or from being raped? Or from being hit or whipped or whatever that …. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE WORKER is a justified reason to escape from that immediate danger, oppressive situation or in defense of oneself and avoidance from further abuse.

Do you think the Employer will argue with the worker to prove that "the running away" is justified or not? Recruiters can just sit back and let the Employer and worker sort this out. You can just listen to the worker's story after the fact and detached from the danger or oppressive situation so later go home and sleep or report for work the next day; but for the worker who feels he/she is being abused, oppressed, or is suffering, no logic or discussion of justification will matter at that moment. The immediate reaction is to escape from that situation.

We do not condone work abandonment. But between saving oneself (a worker) from being oppressed and escaping, I would recommend avoidance or "running away" then the filing a formal complaint with the proper authorities.

Does not the Filipino community and even our Consular Officers plan out and implement escape or rescue operations? I agree this is not allowed nor should be encouraged but please do tell that to the suffering or mentally tortured and harassed OCW and argue their justifications while the Employer disagrees.

However, under the Unified Contract, automatically, talo ang worker if he runs away without justifying his/her reasons before doing so.

Our point: the provisions when put in writing, once agreed by the recruiter with SANARCOM (because some groups think the Unified Contract is pro-worker and protective of OCWs) will condemn the worker to modern day slavery. If it becomes a mandatory requirement of deploying Filipino OCWs, this is tantamount to LEGITIMIZING AND LEGALIZING AND GIVING CONSENT TO ABUSE THE WORKER AND THE WORKER CONSENTS TO BE ABUSED/OPPRESSED.

Is this pro-worker? If you but merely say to "put more protection clauses in favor of the workers" only, this is lip-service. Talk is very cheap. We say, reject this legalization of abuses to workers. This Unified Contract will be the agreement to put the OCW always at the mercy of the Employer and SANARCOM. We recruiters do not want to be party to this that is why we call this Unified Contract cruel, unfair and unjust to our OCWs!

D-1. Workers not ever convicted…..

We recruiters require our workers to submit to us Barangay Clearance, Police Clearance and NBI Clearance to check their background or criminal records.

D-2. Not allowed to be recruited prior to elapse of certain period of time…………..

You say SOP? Why accept it as SOP when it can be otherwise?

This is the NOC requirement which is no longer practiced and implicitly was abolished under the New Labor laws. Yet, you call it only SOP? We recruiters call this ANTI-WORKER for it deprives the worker his source of livelihood and income. This is against Human Rights. In fact, even in local employment this falls under unfair labor practice and even if put in the contract as a protection of the Employer it is now under fire in the Philippines. Yet, this is SOP? We do not want it to be perpetuated and this is the thing that breeds identity theft, changing of passport, falsifying documents using another person's documents, which is prevalent in Taiwan, Korea and in countries where NOC is strictly imposed. Is this pro-worker? It is pro-Employer!

2. NOT TO RECEIVE AMOUNT…. EXCEPT WHAT IS ALLOWED BY THE LAW.

Nice to read, nice to hear, nice to listen to. This is smoke and mirror designed to sugar coat a real bitter financial arrangement.

Consider item 5 of Unified Contract…. "the two parties agree on the details of financial matters in a separate additional addendum."

The SANARCOM can impose on the Philippine Recruiters ANYTHING, ANY AMOUNT WHATSOEVER, TO BE COLLECTED FROM ANYONE, AT ANY TIME under this item and non-parties to the contract will have no access to.

Private terms imposed on us must be kept confidential. Who will admit collecting more than what is allowed by law? Let us not kid ourselves. The SANARCOM's imposition on us will prevail if we Philippine recruiters want to continue to do business in KSA.

Check Item 21 of the Unified Contract which limits the parties duration agreement to only one-year. So if the Philippine recruiter wants to renew his agreement or continue to do business in KSA, the Philippine recruiter will be compelled to agree to more onerous secret financial terms and conditions and arrangements. We were not born yesterday. And if the Philippine recruiters agree to pay higher, much higher secret commission to the SANARCOM, from who will this amount be taken? From the workers, of course. So where is the limitation of the legal fees? It does not exist. That is why we want to avoid entering into this lopsided Unified Contract that will make lives of our OCWs very miserable.

ANOTHER CAUSE OF ALARM:

a. READ VERY WELL Item 23 which states "prior to conducting this contract both parties agreed" (N.B. yet the Philippine recruiter is completely unaware or without knowledge) "to adhere to ANY PROVISIONS" (N.B. which SANARCOM can put in item 5) "or instructions that may be issued by the" (N.B. UNKNOWN and UNESTABLISHED/UNDEFINED) "Joint Committee" [N.B. composed of whom???] between agencies and National Recruitment Committee [N.B. and mind you, they even wrote]…..(If there is any Joint Committee) and shall follow the provisions of the Memorandum of Undertaking (N.B., WHAT MOU?) signed by etc., etc., etc.,

ANO ITO? LOKOHAN. PIRMAHAN NA PIKIT ANG MATA where and whatever provisions against the recruiter or AGAINST THE WORKER can be written and have EVERYONE involved in it agree and give blanket and free consent? If this is not anti-human, anti-logic and anti-correct reasoning, please tell me, what this is called! Pro-worker and protective of everyone's rights? HINDI YATA.

3. NOT TO RESORT TO SERVICES OF…..

3-1. MEDIATORS – This means Labor Conciliators who perhaps can settle disputes between the worker and the Employer. These can be our Labor Attaches, Assistant Labor Attaches, POLOs, or social workers, community leaders, etc. Shall we now agree not to use them to settle disputes to help the worker in distress?

3-2. OR ANY UNLICENSED PARTIES – We agree these are the recruitment "intermediaries" (Not Mediators) or middleman or so-called "Marketing Directors" who we call as "PALENGQUEROS." Whether you believe us or not, most often, these "Marketing Directors" or illegal recruiters are employed by foreign owned agencies who could not care much to what happen to their victims.

The use of contract substitution here is misplaced because illegal recruitment is committed prior to the contract processing. That is why in this instance there is no contract to be substituted yet.

The illegal transfer of sponsorship is never done by a Philippine recruiter but by our counterpart recruiter in KSA… like perhaps SANARCOM members or by whoever in the Kingdom. This provision must apply to them, not to Philippine recruiters.

Item 9 of the Unified Contract.

I will jump to Item 9 because I am tired in doing this and it is 3:00 AM already and I just want to rest for a while.

Many, if not all Filipino community leaders, are aware that most of the work contract the Employer wants implemented in the Kingdom [perhaps because it deviates from the POEA Standard Model Employment Contract] will not pass the approval of our POLO, Labor Attaché. But if ever it passes the scrutiny of our POLOs and even after it is verified by the Consulate or Embassy and the work contract is not up to the minimum standards of the POEA, it will NOT be approved by POEA unless it is amended and countersigned by the Employer.

Under the Unified Contract this is of no moment or concern of the SANARCOM because of their powers under Item 9.

This is the VERY ROOT CAUSE of contract substitution… that the Employer's actual employment contract, which is not acceptable to POEA, is now substituted by the pro-forma standard [de cajon] POEA Standard Model Employment Contract just to facilitate POEA's contract and OEC processing.

Because of the power of SANARCOM under Item 9, the SANARCOM would not care whatever amendment, enhancement of terms or salary adjustment POEA will mandate because SANARCOM will not honor it and will have in replaced when the worker arrives in KSA.

How can you, in conscience, say that this is transparency and will avoid "contract substitution"?

Under the Unified Contract, whatever terms and conditions we tell the Employer as minimum POEA Model Employment Contract terms and ask the Employer to commit to because of our negotiation and then we have this verified by the Labor Attaché/POLO and later attested by the Consular Office and finally sent to POEA for review and once approved will be the contract that will be signed by the worker, WILL JUST BE TORN TO PIECES, DISHONORED AND SUBSTITUTED BY SANARCOM because Item 9 states that the "work contract in force .… is the one presented by the Second Party [SANARCOM] (approved in the Kingdom)[N.B. please take note that the Philippine Consulate/Embassy is not sovereignly part of the Kingdom as it is Philippine soil. Therefore, the attached contract within our Consulate or Embassy is NOT the one approved in the Kingdom … which must be approved outside our Consulate or Embassy] in his capacity as the Employer's representative "approved in the Kingdom."

Now, will you recommend and endorse that I sign this Unified Contract?

If you sincerely believe that this Unified Contract is GOOD FOR THE FILIPINO OCW, please think again and PLEASE just send me a note that you have the capacity to protect our OCWs and you have the power to defend our OCWs when this provision is shown in the Labor Court by SANARCOM once they charge the worker with all the violations SANARCOM can put in that work contract.

I am sorry but I cannot agree with you that the Unified Contract is PRO-WORKER.

Pleasant dreams and good morning.

Ramadan Kareem.

Regards,

Vic

-----

VICTOR E.R. FERNANDEZ, JR.

President

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI)

Ground Floor, David Building I

567 Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City

1550 Philippines

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/13/2008 : 06:39:48 AM

September 10, 2008 - Joseph Henry Espiritu replied to Mr. Vic Fernandez email.

Transcript (Email)

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Joseph Henry B. Espiritu"
Subject: Thread Three : ka ronnie and my stand re SANARCOM Contract - this thread is open for discussion
To: "Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI)" <pasei.info@gmail.com>, Ronnie Abeto

Dear ka Vic,

Pasensya na medyo natagalan ang pagsagot ko sa email..

Ito ang ating mga argumento.

You in the Recruitment Industry (PASEI, FMW) said :

"The UC is anti-OFW at hindi naman anti-recruitment agency (totally)." (I intentionally put totally dahil sinabi nyo na di kayo maapektohan pero with your statements at convictions ay apektado talaga kayo.)

For us Ka Ronnie and yours truly said :

The UC is not anti-OFW pero against sa mga well meaning na recruitment agencies na katulad nyo.

For us, we find the UC as beneficial to OFWs because both the recruitment agencies of the sending and receiving countries ay may undertaking kung kaninong specific responsibility ang para sa worker at para sa employer.

As I had noticed sa mga postings nyo, ay mga warnings at apprehensions lamang ng mga magiging problema ng worker, na maaring mangyayari kung may Unified Contract.

Ang sa amin naman ay yong mga sinasabi nyong problema ay nangyari na at sa paniniwala naman namin ay mawawala ang mga problemang ito kung may Unified Contract.

If we will analyze well, ang bottomline sa mga problema na naraise nyo ay hindi ang kapakanan ng OFWs, hindi ang UC specifically kundi ang SANARCOM.

Ang sa amin naman is we don't put much emphasis on the personalities or the background of the people behind SANARCOM but we consider the UNIFIED Contract and the benefits na maidudulot nito sa mga OFWs kung maimplement. (Again, Like Ka Jun, I would like to ask this same question to you; If hindi SANARCOM ang nagtake ng lead, sasangayon ba kayo sa UC?)

The issues tungkol sa GAMCA at sa mga foreign recruiters na nasa Pilipinas, kasama nyo kami sa labanan na yan. Pero the solution is not the rejection of the Unified Contract but to force the Philippine Government to ACT (!!!) dahil sa sariling bansa natin ay hindi tayo pwedeng hahawakan or magiging alipin nino man. Same thing na hindi rin natin pwedeng madiktahan ang bansang Saudi Arabia. We will issue a strong statement and call the attention of the Philippine Government that must act now and start the bilateral negotiations para sa isyong ito na dapat noon pa ay ginawa nila.

I already had raised my points about each provision of the Unified Contract at wala ng dahilan para balikan ko pa yon. However gusto ko lang sagutin yong kay ka Vic na explanation sa point C.

Not to reject the work or Running Away with no justified reason.

As I had said running away is not new, it's always a violation of the Saudi Laws. I already had explained that in my previous emails kung ano ang mga processes, consequences ng pagtakas.

But in your email ka vic, nagword picking po kayo sa point C.

You wrote :"Not to reject the work".. YOU DID NOT Comment on this.

That is not the way to divide the Point C, Ka Vic..

It should be "Not to reject the work with no justified reason" and "Not to runaway with no justified reason".

"The clause WITH NO JUSTIFIED REASON is so important.. kahit sa batas ng Saudi Arabia ay nirespeto ang reasons. basta totoo lang na reasons, walang dagdag at walang bawas.

Ano po ba ang JUSTIFIED REASONs ? - Ang mga violations sa karapatan ng isang worker sang-ayon sa batas ng Saudi Arabia.

Tinanong mo po na baka patrabahoin ng ibang trabaho, at pwede ba syang tatanggi? YES! pwedeng pwede dahil karapatan nya yon at yon ang justified reason nya.

Ano ang kanyang mga kalakasan ?

Saudi Labor Law - Articles 81, Article 38, 39, etc..

Basic Laws - kung sakali pamamasahein ang isang babae sa isang lalaki or pahawakan ang ng amo ang maselang bahagi ng kanyang katawan. Magsumbong sa police.

RA8042 - Magsumbong sa inyong embassy, sa polo.

With Unified Contract then pwede ka magsumbong sa KSA Based Recruitment Agency ( if you dont like SANARCOM).

Di ba mas maganda dahil may direkta ng makipag-usap sa employer, na "hoy bakit hindi mo inalagaan ang worker na naiprovide ko sa yo!"

yon ang kagandahan kung may recruitment agency dito dahil pwede natin silang kalampagin din kung may pang-aabuso ng employer.

Again may i reiterate that this is the system na gusto kong mangyari.

Worker-Philippine Recruitment Agency - UC - KSA Recruitment Agency-Employer

where the Worker at Philippine Recruitment agency ay nakabind sa batas ng Philippines (ie, RA8042, Immigration Laws, etc..). The Recruitment Agency will ensure the protection of the worker as what is written in RA8042 or any Philippine laws.

where the KSA Recruitment Agency (not necessarily SANARCOM) and Employer ay nakabind sa batas ng Saudi Arabia (Saudi Labor Law, Immigration law, etc)..The recruiters responsibility is to ensure that

the Laws of Saudi Arabia will be imposed for the protection of both the worker and the Employer.

where the Worker and the Employer ay nakabind sa Saudi LAbor Law, Social Insurance Law, Immigration Law ng Saudi Arabia.

where the Philippine Government (Sending Country) at KSA (Receiving Country) ay may bilateral agreements para protektahan both the workers, the employers and the recruitment agencies.

Naexplain ko na po sa previous emails ang difference ng sistemang ito kumpara sa ibang existing na setup.

Ka Vic, may I ask for the list of PASEI members? if okay lang sa inyo. Kung sakali makaprovide din kayo ng list ng FAME or OPAP.. or yong sa SANARCOM.

Ka Jun, May i ask you for the latest copy of the Unified Contract, dahil sa ating discussions sa previous email, you mentioned na yong mga properly-employed ay maapektohan din sa UC.

Ka Jun, again ulitin ko ikaw ang tanging recruiter na alam ko na sobra ang concern para sa workers na pinadala mo dito. Saksi ako nyan. pero hindi mo rin siguro pwedeng matanggi na may mga situations din na hindi natin kayang kontrolin ang employer at hindi maiwasan na may mga abuses na mangyayari. Admittedly, though we in the the V-Team kahit sumubra na tayo sa limitations ng ating kakayahan ay may mga oras din na masasabi natin na sana may KSA Based na Recruitment agency lang dito.

Ka Vic, siguro kakila mo si Ka Rudy Castro ng grupong OFWCC ng Jeddah. He called me this afternoon dahil yong apo nya si Claredz ay may labor problem sa kanyang employer. Dumating si Claredz dito June 1, 2005 at natapos na sana nag kanyang two-year contract last 2007. Ngayon ayaw pa rin syang pauwiin. I asked her kung nagpadala ba sya ng notice, sabi nya maraming beses na daw kahit noong hindi pa tapos ang contract at marami syang kopya ng mga letters na yon.

I asked her kung may Iqama ba sya. Ang sagot nya kahit kailan hindi sya nakakita ng Iqama o kopya man lang noon. Tinanong ko sya kung papano sila makalabas, sabi nya xerox lang daw ng passport at yong letter ng hospital.. I asked her kung may license ba sya sa saudi council bilang nurse,. ang sagot nya wala (dahil wala syang iqama) at kung may inspection ang moh ay magtatago lang daw sila.

I asked her kung tumawag ba sya sa Agency ang sabi nya yes at ang sabi daw ng agency ay sa susunod hindi na sila magpapadala ng workers sa hospital na yon at iblocklist na lang daw nila.

Tinanong ko sya kung lumapit ba sya sa POLO. Sabi nya lahat daw ng mga kasamahan nya ay lumapit na rin sa POLO at fax lang naman daw ang ginawa. Yong iba kauuwi lang.

Kung magkasakit sila ay 50 percent discount lang daw sila sa hospital. "good na sa hospital sila nagwork. papano kung hindi. papano sila maipasok sa hospital ng walang iqama? papano kung maaksidente sila papunta sa work ? wala silang gosi, wala silang insurance. hindi sila makapadala ng pera kundi makisuyo nalang sa mga kaibigan.

Ngayon gusto nyang umuwi dahil yong fiancee nya ay pauwi from US at three weeks lang ang bakasyon sa october. Dapat daw nyang makauwi para mapaghandaan lahat. Kinausap nya na daw ang manager at umiyak na rin sya, wala pa rin epek. Puntahan namin bukas ang hospital kung saan sya nagwork.

I just want to tell you ka vic na the agency is Prestige Search International, which i think is a member of PASEI.

I asked the other nurses from the same hospital na may iqama, may license ng saudi council kung ano ang agency nila. Four Brothers Manpower Services daw. (Which i think a foreign owned recruitment agency)

I don't blame the Prestige Search International for that dahil nga sa limitations nila. pero to think na kung may UC at may recruitment agency dito na pwede natin kalampagin, siguro sa umpisa pa lang ay solve na ang problema.

Though at this specific case, the foreign owned recruitment agency seems to be the one being good and responsible. I still stick to my position that the Philippine government should promote and protect the

Recruitment Agencies owned by Filipinos and not the foreign owned ones.

I may suggest to end this discussion na sana, dahil nasabi naman na ang lahat ng gusto nating sabihin otherwise this will be an un-ending discussion. The important thing is that we are able to get all sides.

One last thing, will it be okay if our discussions here will be posted in patnubay.com ? for transparency and for those people na gustong malaman ang issue tungkol sa Unified contract.

Maraming salamat po at mabuhay po tayong lahat.

Kind regards,

Tas

jespiritu

Admin

321 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2008 : 04:04:20 AM

Mr. Vic Fernandez   wrote :

Under the Unified Contract, whatever terms and conditions we tell the Employer as minimum POEA Model Employment Contract terms and ask the Employer to commit to because of our negotiation and then we have this verified by the Labor Attaché/POLO and later attested by the Consular Office and finally sent to POEA for review and once approved will be the contract that will be signed by the worker, WILL JUST BE TORN TO PIECES, DISHONORED AND SUBSTITUTED BY SANARCOM because Item 9 states that the "work contract in force .… is the one presented by the Second Party [SANARCOM] (approved in the Kingdom)[N.B. please take note that the Philippine Consulate/Embassy is not sovereignly part of the Kingdom as it is Philippine soil. Therefore, the attached contract within our Consulate or Embassy is NOT the one approved in the Kingdom … which must be approved outside our Consulate or Embassy] in his capacity as the Employer's representative "approved in the Kingdom."

Reaction :

Not new, ang mga problemang sinabi sa taas ay nangyari na ng matagal, na wala pang Unified Contract.

Let us face the reality, na sa Saudi Arabia ay hindi talaga ino-honor ang POEA Employment contract. kung dadalhin mo yan sa Labor Court ngayon ay hindi yan papansinin. "Ish hada?" lang ang marinig mo.

Ang inohonor ay yong contract na nakasulat sa Arabic (kadalasan ay may english translation) pirmado ng worker at ng employer. (Article 9 of Saudi Labor Law)

Accept it na may dalawang contract ang worker dito, yong contract ng POEA (na kaliwali) at yong contract nila dito with the employer. ito yong naging scenario

1. Best -   Kung ang Arabic na contract ay mas pabor sa worker.
2. Good - Magkapareho ang contract sa POEA at sa TOTOONG contract.
3. Bad -    Kung ang Arabic na contract ay naglagay sa worker sa alanganin at pumirma naman ang worker. (Bawas na ang sahod at mga benefits, pinapatrabaho sa profession an hindi angkop sa kanya at iba pang uri ng contract substitution)
4. Worst - Ang walang contract..

Ano naman ang karapatan ng worker ?

1. Huwag pumirma kung ang napagsunduan sa Pilipinas ay hindi nasunod. Ang problema nga lang ay ang Philippine Recruitment Agency din sa Pilipinas ang magadvise sa worker na tiisin na lang.
2. Lumapit sa Embassy or sa POLO na ang advise naman sa worker ay tawagan ang Philippine Recruitment agency. Again, ang Philippine Recruitment Agency din sa Pilipinas ang magadvise sa worker na tiisin na lang.
3. Kung walang contract ang worker dito ay dapat humingi sya ng contract. Karapatan nya yan Under Saudi Labor Law.

Ano nga pala ang mga kadalasang problema ?

1. Sahod - the moment na pipirmahan ng worker ang sahod na nakasulat sa arabic na contract, wala na syang habol dyan kahit ilang POEA contract pa. Pero hopeless na ba ang worker? Hindi pa dahil may Article 53 ang Saudi Labor law nagsabi na ang worker at ang employer ay may karapatan magterminate ng contract within the probationary period (maliban lang kung nakasulat sa contract na ang employer lang ang pwedeng magterminate ng kasundoan)
2. Benefits and other Employer Responsibilities - Lahat ng workers ay dapat covered ng Medical Benefits, Disability Benefits, Overtime, ESB, Iqama, Work Permit. Ang mga ito ay sasagutin ng employer. May contract man or wala obligasyon ng employer na sasagutin yan lahat dahil yan ang nakasaad sa Articles 38, 39, 40,106 to 107, of Saudi Labor Law.

Pero bakit hanggang ngayon ay patuloy pa rin ang problemang ito? Dahil ang mga agencies ay walang alam sa situation, walang alam sa batas ng Saudi or simply, wala silang paki-alam.

Article 38 - not allowed to work for other profession
Article 39 - not allowed to work for an employer who is not the sponsor
Article 40 - Iqama, work permit, tickets, transfer of sponsorship.. (note in 40.2 the worker will incur the fees of plane ticket and exit visa if he wishes to terminate the contract with no ligitimate reasons)
Article 106 - Overtime if 60 hours or more in a week. Working during Eid il Fitr or Eid al Adha is considered overtime (1 day off a week)
Article 107 - Computation of Overtime

Ang mga problemang ito ay matagal na nagexist. Bakit nila sasabihin na kung may Unified contract ay magkakaroon ng problema na ganito? Hindi ba nila alam na sila ang naging dahilan bakit nagkaroon ng problemang ganito?

Again salungat tayo ng paniniwala, dahil kung ang Unified Contract ay supportado ng Saudi Government then walang rason na hindi nila susundin ang mga provisions ng Saudi Labor Law at iba pang existing laws.

Mr. Vic Fernadez wrote :

Under the Unified Contract, the worker is PROTECTIONLESS when brought to the Labor Court in the event the worker complains about him being hired and a different visa is used for him under the Unified Contract. But with us – Recruiters – and without the Unified Contract, we demand to have an amended J.O. or Visa Usage Allocation Undertaking signed by the Employer. The worker will not know or will be informed of this under the Unified Contract. Once the worker legally files a complaint in the Labor Court, he will lose his day in Court because his visa category may not match with his actual skills making his case or complaint moot and baseless and be unable to reject the work being forced on him.

Reaction :

Again mali, ang KSA Ministry of Labor ang magdecide kung ilang workers at ilang visa ang i-issue para sa isang specific na profession (in coordination with Jawasat). This is for strictly implementing the saudization and for controlling the influx of migrant workers.

Ammended Job Order or Visa Allocation is a thing of the past. To those workers na nandito na ng matagal at magkaiba ang profession, ang visa at ang Iqama (work permit) has to pay an amount para magkapareha ang mga ito. Pero sa mga bagong dating, strictly implemented na kung ano man ang working visa ay dapat ganun din ang iyong profession.

Dahil limited ang visa, at dahil sa kailangan ang worker, ay mapipilitan ang employer na gagamit ng visa ng ibang sponsor or ibang profession.. DYAN Nag-umpisa ang problema.

Dagdag pa ang pangako ng Philippine Recruitment Agency na sa pagdating ng worker dito ay mabago ang kanyang profession. Tuloy naging subject for abuses ang isang worker.

Katulad ng pumunta dito ng Visit visa dahil gagawan daw ng ammended job order or visa allocation. Take note that ang visit visa holder ay bawal magtrabaho. Walang karapatan ang worker na magreklamo sa Ministry of Labor. Ang workaround minsan ng mga employer kung magustohan ang worker ay pauuwiin ito at pagbalik ay working visa na. Sad to say, marami na dito ang pumunta ng visit visa , naexpire ang visit visa, abused ang worker, hindi makareklamo, kung maaksidente or magkasakit ay hindi maipagamot.

Dahil yan sa mga pangako ng Ammendment JO at Visa Allocation ng mga Recruitment Agency.

May mga nurses na pumupunta dito at magwork sa hospital, dh naman ang visa. Hindi makakuha ng lisensya as nurse dito, hindi covered ng saudi labor law, walang insurance at naging subject for abuses.

Pero noong nag-implement ng 400USD para sa mga DH, ang ginagawa naman ng mga Philippine Recruitment agency ay maghire ng Janitress (skilled worker) pero pinatrabaho naman sa bahay, walang dayoff, at sasabihin na DH naman talaga sya.

Saan ba nag-umpisa ang problema? Sa UC na hindi pa naimplement? Di ba sa Pilipinas sa paghire ng worker? Sa Phiippine Recruitment Agency!

Ngayon heto ang Unified Contract na naka-align sa gobyerno ng Saudi Arabia sa kanyang mga batas, sasabihin nyo na mangyayari ang mga problema?

I believe if the Unified Contract is implemented well, in accordance with the existing laws of the Kingdom ay masolve ang mga problemang nasabi ko sa taas. Mga problema na ang may sanhi ang mga Philippine Recruitment Agency din na wala sa ayos.

Regards,
tas